Steinberg, Matthew P.; Sartain, Lauren (2015). Education Finance and Policy, v10 n4 p535-572. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1077268
Reviewed: August 2018
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT): Reading Assessment |
Excellence in Teaching Project (EITP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT): Mathematics Assessment |
Excellence in Teaching Project (EITP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 64% | |
| White | 10% |
| Hispanic | 22% |
The study took place in Chicago Public schools; specifically, within four instructional areas in the district. 93 schools were randomized. No information is provided regarding how many teachers and administrators participated.
The two cohorts of schools had similar demographics. Cohort 1 schools had 49% female students, while Cohort 2 had 50%. Cohort 1 students included 60% who were African American, 24% Hispanic, 11% White, and 5% Asian. Cohort 2 schools were 67% African American, 20% Hispanic, 8% White, and 5% Asian. The proportion of students on free and reduced lunch was .82 in Cohort 1 and .83 in Cohort 2.
The intervention consisted of principal training and the teacher observation/conferencing process. Teachers were to be observed twice a year and this consisted of a pre-observation meeting, an observation, and a follow-up meeting. Classroom observations were guided by the Danielson Framework for Teaching.
Cohort 2 schools continued with business-as-usual in Year 1 of the study regarding how teachers were observed and evaluated.
In terms of training, Cohort 1 principals received an introductory meeting with central office leadership, a three-day summer training, four half-day refreshers, and seven monthly professional learning community meetings in the first year of implementation. They also received weekly emails, two reports from the intervention partner, and could request additional support. By contrast, Cohort 2 principals received two days of training prior to implementing the intervention in Year 2 of the study and could request additional assistance from central office staff.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube